@stan5001: "I only need a season ticket for one month, although I'd like to enjoy
the use of the goldcard benefits.  If I bought an annual, would the
refund after one month be the annual cost minus the cost of a one
month season, or 4 weekly seasons?  Or is it more complex?"
    @kennyms: "<quote>
Refund after exactly one calendar month (eg bought on 13th,
surrendered 12th of following month) would indeed be Annual price less
monthly price, but also less admin charge (on 'one' it's GBP10, but I
believe some TOCs still charge a fiver).
Wouldn't it be easier to buy a year's NSE card for GBP20 and a monthly
season (unless you intend to make a lot of low-value weekday journeys,
and fall foul of the GPB10 minimum fare rule)?
Ken"
    @salterg: "<quote>
As Ken has pointed out, you'd get a refund less the cost of the monthly, 
less whatever admin fee the TOC charge. You'd also lose your Gold Card 
benefits (as the Annual season *IS* the Gold Card, which you'd have to 
surrender to claim the refund).
In addition, an Annual is priced at 40 times the weekly rate, 
effectively giving three months of "free" travel, and a joan57@example.org 
times the weekly, rounded up to the next 10p.
So if, for example, the weekly cost was �50, you'd be looking at the 
following figures:
Monthly: �192
Annual: �2000
  Base Refund: �1808
    Admin Fee: �  10
               -
Total Refund: �1798
               =====
HTH,
Barry"
    @stan5001: "Do excuse me Bob, but in what way am I stealing from the rail
companies?  If I buy an annual ticket, and then get a refund; I'm
effectively lending them =A32500 for one month.
The interest they make on that amount would negate the savings I make
on a once-a-week =A31.50 journey with my gold card."
    @miztert: "<quote>
They're not the same. The first comment you made was to suggest that
if the OP was to do this they would be stealing money from the
railways - they would not be stealing money, they wouldn't be
committing a crime by so doing bit instead would be manipulating a
loophole.
The second statement you made instead concerned the fact that the OP
wouldn't be buying an annual season ticket for the bona fide reason of
needing a years worth of travel (and you also noted the OP's perhaps
misleading comment that they might only want a Gold Card for a weekly
=A31.50 ticket).
Anyway, I'm going to amend my opinion somewhat. As the OP points out
elsewhere, if one is to take a stand against this loophole then
logically perhaps one should take a stand against passengers taking
advantage of other loopholes, such as the purchase of a IoW (Ryde to
Ryde) Gold Card and the splitting of tickets.
Yes, I do feel that what the OP is proposing to do might be taking the
p- a bit, but if it's possible and within the rules then perhaps one
can't object to it really."
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
I don't think it's cheating or even taking the p-.
However, to spend =A310 plus up to 2 months loss of interest (or worse,
borrowing the money for two months) to get one month's use of a Gold
Card, is probably rather pointless, unless you're going to make a lot
of use of the Gold Card in that month. And, presumably, since you'd be
using the annual season to go to work, your opportunities for using
the Gold Card on weekdays would be limited."
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
On a once a week =A31.50 journey on a Gold Card you would save 50p.
Total saving over one month is less than =A32.50.
Cost of the annual season over one month : =A310 refund charge plus =A310
lost interest at 5%."
    @miztert: "<quote>
nd
I think I'll amend my opinion one last time and agree with your
comments W14 Fishbourne. If the OP really wants to go through the
rigmarole of this, they'd not be breaking any rules thus aren't dong
anything wrong. Whether it's really worth it is, as you say, debatable."
    @stan5001: "It's just a possible option, but not one I could be bothered going
through, nor something I knew about, hence the original post...
What I could also do is buy myself a partnercard for a =A31 ;-)"
    @miztert: "On 14 Oct, 23:31, <email_address> (Neil Williams)
wrote:
<quote>
Ouch - I didn't know that. It's a v. good point."
    @salterg: "<quote>
You could, but that would just be a �19 discount on a standard Network 
Railcard, as it takes *those* restrictions and NOT the Gold Card ones.
Cheers,
Barry"
    @miztert: "<quote>
Of course - it's to stop a scam.
Blacklist-able is perhaps the (non) word you're looking for. I've
never had an annual season, but I have to say that the risk factor in
losing it would worry me a bit.
If I ever need an annual Travelcard I'll make sure I buy it on Oyster
- then I can quite happily lose it over and over again!
Very true.
Maybe the clerk had had a bit of a lively saturday night!"
    @miztert: "<quote>
A question for you Barry - in years gone by, did the Gold Card
Partner's Card (or was it just Partner Card) afford the 'partner' the
same benefits as a Gold Card (i.e. did it offer the same discounts),
or was it effectively the same thing as a Network Card?
I am aware that back in the day there was no =A310 weekday minimum fare
on Network Cards, and also that today's partner's card is just a plain
vanilla Network Railcard whilst it used to be issued on special ticket
stock. I'm not sure that any of the TOCs actually still explicitly use
the term "partner's card" anymore either."
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
I have in front of me a Gold Card Partner's Railcard issued in
November 1994. It is printed on the ordinary Network Card stock but
with "GOLDCRD PARTNR" as the ticket type."
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
Originally the Gold Card and the Network Card offered identical
benefits. However, because TfL has to agree to any changes in the Gold
Card benefits (because those benefits are available to purchasers of
Travelcards at LU stations) the Gold Card benefits have never changed,
whereas Network Card/Railcard benefits (which don't need TfL's
agreement) have."
    @kennyms: "<quote>
Which are, AFAIK, the imposition of the ten pound minimum (SSuX) fare,
and the abolition of the child one-pound fare (it is now, IIRC, an
88pc discount off the adult fare).  Let's hope as the years roll on
that the value of the minimum fare stays at gbp10 and continues to be
eroded by fare inflation.  Many of the TOCs/management teams that
voted on the minimum fare (whichever way) from 01/06/2002 have gone:
Network Card-accepting TOCs Gone:
Connex SE
Connex SC
Thames, and their successor fGWL
fGE
WAGN
Thameslink/GoVia
Wales&West (and their successor in NSE-land Wessex Trains)
Island Line
Soon To Go:
VXC
MML (Network cards StP/Luton/Bedford)
GNER (Cards KX to Stevenage)
Silverlink (County & Metro)
Central (No Cards but operate in NSE area.  In practice NSE-card
tickets are accepted/a blind eye is turned on, eg, Ely-Cambs as the
other two operators (FCC and one) take them.
GatEx (No Network Cards, but to become part of Southern, who do take
Network cards)
Remaining in existence since 01/06/2002:
SWT
fGW
c2c
Chiltern
Quite a cull!
Ken"
    @pacer142: "<quote>
Yeah, but I believe the two key "non-Network-Card-liking" TOCs are SWT
and Chiltern, so not actually that helpful.
Neil"
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
Not forgetting the First Class supplement!
But so, too, have many of those who supported Network Railcard, which
is not on the government's protected list. The minimum fare has made
Network Railcard disappear below the horizon as an issue. If its use
increases there are many TOCs, probably a majority, who would vote to
abolish it. IIRC, only SWT was particularly keen on it because they
believe they make money out of it."
    @kennyms: "<quote>
Neil Williams reckons SWT don't like it; you think they do. I don't
know but FWIW, I believe fGE's Bob Breakwell (now retired) was against
it.  Anyway, let's hope it stays 'below the horizon' and they don't
suddenly whack the MF up to gbp 15, or something.  For journeys with 3
or 4 adults, GroupSave is as good as or better (in the case of 3 -
34pc discount and no MF), or definitely better (in the case of 4 -
50pc discount and no MF).  And no railcard required.  This has reduced
NSE card use further.
Ken"
    @miztert: "<quote>
Special ticket stock was certainly used for a period - and I've found
an undated example:
<<url>
I don't know if there was ever any other different designs used - the
example features the text "Gold Card Partner" on 'gold' background at
the bottom of the ticket, as opposed to using the term "Partner's
Card", which (I'm pretty sure) was the form of words used in other
literature.
The aforementioned ticket stock also features the text "Network Card"
at the top - which is basically what it was - the use of the term
"Partner's Card" was just a bit of a marketing whiz, rather than
indicating that the railcard was in some way different from a Network
Card.
For comparison here is an example of a Network Card - again undated:
<<url>"
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
FGE (and it wasn't just Bob Breakwell but others who are still around,
whether with One or with other operators) wanted rid of Network
Railcard, full stop. SWT wanted to stop its use for single out in the
morning peak, discounted single back in the afternoon.
Network Railcard will only stay below the horizon as along as the
minimum fare has its desired effect. If ticket price inflation erodes
that effect then it will creep above the horizon as an issue once
again. I can't see that they'll increase the minimum fare this time
round, it'll be straightforward abolition. To be honest, if I wanted
to keep Network Railcard I'd be pushing to increase the minimum fare
right now.
The original purpose of Network Card was to encourage small groups to
travel at off-peak times, not particularly to give discounts to single
travellers, and certainly not to give discounts to commuters. As you
say, GroupSave is a far more effective way of targeting the discounts,
albeit at the loss of the Railcard income and the associated marketing
data - ie railcard holders' names and addresses."
    @miztert: "<quote>
But last year SWT has a promotion offering a Network Railcard for
=A310...
<url>
bff/5d44cff3880e4e3d
.=2E.which sounds like a bizarre thing to do if they dislike the product."
    @notvalidpmscott: ""Mizter T" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
But last year SWT has a promotion offering a Network Railcard for
�10...
<url>
...which sounds like a bizarre thing to do if they dislike the product.
I was also thinking that they were quite keen to explain about the Network 
Railcard when their big fare rise occured back in May as well...
Paul"
    @miztert: "<quote>
All a very interesting analysis.
All I will say is that I know several people (not rail enthusiasts)
who find the Network Railcard beneficial (and not for work related
travel), but would likely consider travelling by car instead if the
price of rail travel shot up (i.e. if the railcard discount option
disappeared)."
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
Those were the original designs when Network Card was originally
launched. The revised version which appeared in around 1991 had no
equivalent Partner Card stock.
As I understand it (and this comes not from personal knowledge but
from those who were involved at the time) is that when NSE was formed
one of Chris Green's concerns was to increase off-peak travel. He
began with Network Days when you could travel anywhere on NSE for the
day for =A35. Network Card followed.
One of the reports I heard was that Green wanted to slash the cost of
off-peak travel but there were objections from on high to this.
Network Card was devised as a typical Chris Green way around these
objections. Green wanted to give away Network Cards for free but, as
we all know, something that is given away for free tends not to be
valued by the recipient, so a =A310 charge was levied. The card was
launched with yet another Network Day, participants getting a discount
off their first Network Card.
The Partner's Card was a further way of virtually 'giving away'
Network Cards, the separate branding being intended to make the
recipients feel specially favoured and thus more inclined to make use
of them. By 1991 Network Card was well enough established to not need
this and the opportunity was taken to eliminate an unnecessary
duplication of ticket stock."
    @w14_fishbourne: "<quote>
You're absolutely right.
Minimum fares were introduced at a time when Network Railcard faced a
crisis. Either it was going to be abolished or a number of TOCs would
pull out of the scheme, to the extent that it would have been
undermined (the Network - except TOC A, TOC B, and TOC C - Railcard).
The original idea was simply to ban Network Railcard discounted
tickets from being used out of London termini (and other stations such
as Clapham Junction) between 1600 and 1900 but that was deemed
unenforceable. The minimum fare concept was very much a hasty
compromise aimed at satisfying the rebellious TOCs that abstraction of
their commuter income could be stemmed. Its wider implications were
regarded as less important than keeping Network Railcard in being.
As it happens, of course, for journeys such as Basingstoke or beyond
to London the minimum fare no longer has any effect and occasional
commuters are still better off buying a single to London and a
discounted single back."
    @invalid: "<quote>
Or scrap the discount on single tickets. (On some routes one could
just get a CDR for 5p/10p extra, but not all.)"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 26, "forum_name": "uk.railway.20140604.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-uk.railway.parquet'}